The Legal 500

OCEAN FINANCIAL CENTRE, LEVEL 27, 10 COLLYER QUAY, SINGAPORE 049315, SINGAPORE
Tel:
Work +65 6389 3000
Fax:
Fax +65 6389 3099
Email:
Web:
www.stamfordlaw.com.sg

Show all Press releases

Stamford Law recognised among Asian-Mena Counsel’s Deals of the Year 2012

February 2013

Stamford Law has been recognised among the Asian-Mena Counsel's Deals of the Year 2012. The firm won an award for its involvement in the Asia Pacific Breweries (APB)/ Heineken deal, which saw Stamford Law acting for Fraser & Neave, Limited in the S$5.59 billion sale of its 39.7% effective interest in APB to Heineken. The deal was keenly watched globally and reported on extensively by international media. It is one of the largest deals ever in Singapore's history and was named by Bloomberg as one of the top 10 largest M&A transactions in Southeast Asia for 2012.

Full coverage of the winning deals and honourable mentions will be published in the March 2013 issue of ‘Asian-Mena Counsel'

Legal Developments by:
Stamford Law

  • Compensation for Breach of an Arbitration Agreement: Damages for Damages

    One of the guerrilla tactics sometimes deployed to undermine an international arbitration is a party's wrongful attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of a national court to resolve a dispute. Often this is done because the party anticipates, or can improperly secure, a favourable outcome before its ‘home' court. This may be a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of an arbitration being commenced by the other party, or it could be done to frustrate an existing arbitration. How can you effectively combat such tactics and uphold the dispute resolution process you had bargained for?
    - Stamford Law Corporation

Legal Developments in Singapore

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • PDPC issues additional Advisory Guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012

    On 11 September 2014, the Personal Data Protection Commission (" PDPC ") issued the finalised: 
  • Amendments to the Companies Act – Impact on Corporate Transactions

    This update discusses the amendments brought about by the Companies (Amendment) Bill in the following key categories of corporate transactions and the potential issues which stakeholders may face in practice:
  • Re-employment of Employees & Constructive Dismissal Claims

    This update reports recent developments on employment law and practice in Singapore.
  • Data Protection & Privacy in Singapore 2015 - article in GTDT

    As the invited authors of the Singapore Chapter in Getting the Deal Through - Data Protection & Privacy 2015 , Head of TMT Lim Chong Kin and Director Charmian Aw share further updates on developments in Singapore's data protection regime, as well as the growing impact of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 on organisations and individuals alike.
  • http://www.drewnapier.com/Publications-Events/Legal-Updates/Copyright-(Amendment)-Bill-2014

    This update discusses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (" Bill "), which was passed by Parliament on 8 July 2014.
  • Proposals to enhance regulatory safeguards for investors in the capital markets

    This update discusses a consultation paper published by the Monetary Authority of Singapore on proposals to enhance its regulatory framework for safeguarding investors' interests. The proposals are in the following three key areas: (a) extending to investors in non-conventional investment products the current regulatory safeguards available to investors in capital markets; (b) requiring investment products to be rated for complexity and risks, and for these ratings to be disclosed to investors; and (c) refining the non-retail investor classes including providing accredited investors the option to benefit from the full range of capital markets regulatory safeguards that are applicable for retail investors.
  • Competiton Law Quarterly Update Q2/2014

    In this edition's feature article "CCS airline industry market study", we discuss CCS findings from an airline industry market study which CCS commissioned to examine whether certain joint ventures between airlines operating through Singapore have actually resulted in net economic benefits.
  • PDPA related amendments to MAS AML/CFT notices and MAS’ response to feedback received

    In light of the Personal Data Protection Act coming into force, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (" MAS ") published a consultation paper proposing amendments (" Personal Data Amendment ") to MAS notices on prevention of money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (" ML/CFT Notices "). The Personal Data Amendment aimed to clarify that for the purposes of meeting anti-money laundering / countering the financing of terrorism requirements, financial institutions may collect, use and disclose personal data without customer consent, as per existing practice. Following the receipt of feedback, MAS made further amendments to the Personal Data Amendment and published its response discussing the further amendments in light of feedback received. This update is a follow up to our earlier update on the Personal Data Amendment and discusses MAS' response.
  • Proposed framework for systemically important banks in Singapore

    The Monetary Authority of Singapore (" MAS ") recently published a consultation paper proposing a regulatory framework for systemically important banks in Singapore. This update discusses MAS' proposals, including, an overview of the proposed regulatory framework, the assessment methodology for identifying systemically important banks in Singapore, the policy measures to be applied toward such banks and the implementation timeline for the proposed regulatory framework. 29_july14_proposed_framework_for_systemically_important_banks_in_singapore
  • Compensation for Breach of an Arbitration Agreement: Damages for Damages

    One of the guerrilla tactics sometimes deployed to undermine an international arbitration is a party's wrongful attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of a national court to resolve a dispute. Often this is done because the party anticipates, or can improperly secure, a favourable outcome before its ‘home' court. This may be a pre-emptive strike in anticipation of an arbitration being commenced by the other party, or it could be done to frustrate an existing arbitration. How can you effectively combat such tactics and uphold the dispute resolution process you had bargained for?